Getting to Work Without a Car: What Would Actually Work in Prince Edward County?

A job offer can be good news right up until someone opens the bus schedule.

The shift starts before the first arrival. Closing time falls after the last departure. Or the workplace sits along a rural road, well beyond a comfortable walk from any stop. For someone without a car, the question becomes painfully practical: how can I get there, and can I get home?

At the mayoral debate, Brad Nieman, Terry Shortt and Ernie Margetson offered different approaches to that problem. Brad discussed after-hours service and carpooling. Terry focused on the existing transit system and its scheduling. Ernie proposed housing closer to workplaces and transportation provided by employers.

Each approach deserves consideration. Each also needs a clearer account of who it would serve, what it would cost and whether workers could depend on it.

When the bus and the working day miss each other

Brad identified a recognizable gap: “the after hours is where people are struggling a bit too if they're on shift work.”

The current timetable helps explain why. The first weekday bus from Metro Picton reaches Belleville’s terminal at 7:25 a.m., too late for a 7 a.m. start even before the onward journey to work. The last weekday departure from Belleville toward Picton is 6:05 p.m. Someone finishing later needs another way home.

Those limits matter to workers whose hours follow customers, deliveries or care needs rather than a conventional office day.

Terry suggested that “maybe we'll have to change the scheduling of the County services in order to get people to work on time.” That is a reasonable starting point. Moving a departure might help some commuters without adding a vehicle, but it could make the journey less useful for others. Meeting several different shifts may require additional operating hours.

Council has already endorsed County Transit Strategy 2028. Its modified implementation plan emphasizes improvements to existing services, with expansion dependent on funding and full implementation unlikely by 2028. 

The candidates’ next step is therefore to explain what they would prioritize or change within that work. Which shifts should new service cover first? Would they add hours, move departures or extend routes? A usable answer needs an outward journey and a return.

What does a dependable commute cost?

For riders, price matters alongside availability. Quinte Transit lists adult monthly passes of $55, $95 or $180 depending on journey distance. Those can reduce the cost of regular travel, provided the service actually fits the working day.

For taxpayers, the picture requires more than a fare or an operator’s contract. The County’s approved 2026 budget includes both specialized and public transit:

These are budgeted amounts, rather than audited results. Reserve transfers help finance the year but do not establish a recurring annual funding source.

Cost per passenger also needs careful handling. The transit strategy reports 2024 direct operating costs of $50.04 per fixed-route trip, $9.64 per on-demand trip and $21.08 per specialized trip. On-demand rides use spare specialized-service capacity, so that lower figure cannot price a new dedicated evening service.

Nor does a passenger trip represent a different person each time. One regular commuter makes repeated journeys. Dividing the entire program budget by conventional bus trips alone would mix different services and produce a misleading result.

The stronger question is what additional public spending would provide reliable work round trips for how many additional workers. Evaluation should include punctuality, rejected bookings and whether passengers can return after their shifts.

Low ridership deserves scrutiny. So does a schedule that misses the hours when potential riders need to work. The challenge is to distinguish weak demand from service that cannot meet it, then invest where the employment benefit justifies the ongoing cost.

Can small businesses become transportation providers?

Ernie proposed encouraging employers to provide transportation, “just like they did at the mushroom plant and other employers in the area.”

There is evidence behind the Highline example. In 2015, its human resources director told an Ontario legislative committee that the Wellington operation offered a worker bus, including access for local workers.

Its scale matters. The company then employed 1,120 people across four Ontario farms. That was one company’s workforce across several locations, not evidence of a four-farm shuttle partnership. The County’s 2025 Economic Snapshot estimated the Wellington closure would affect approximately 280 jobs.

That is a wildly different operating environment from a business needing transport for one or two employees. Vital Signs reports that roughly six in ten County employer establishments have fewer than five employees. 

A small business may welcome an applicant without a car while having no capacity to arrange the commute. Expecting someone to attend work reliably does not mean the average County employer can buy a van, employ a driver or manage a daily pickup route.

The cost goes well beyond fuel. A proposal needs to account for purchasing or leasing, insurance, driver time, maintenance, winter equipment, inspections and backup arrangements. Hiring a transportation provider can remove some operational work, but the business still receives a bill. Vehicle choice also affects licensing requirements: Ontario identifies Class F licensing for non-school buses seating 10–24 passengers. 

Transporting two people can leave much of the same vehicle and driver cost spread across far fewer passengers than transporting ten, fifty, or more. Scattered homes and staggered shifts make the arrangement harder again.

There are circumstances where an employer could reasonably benefit: persistent vacancies, enough workers travelling together, or several nearby businesses supporting a shared route. Those possibilities need actual participation and quotations before their economics can be established.

Businesses already sponsor County summer transit, offering a local example of participation without each operating a vehicle. But sponsorship and a dependable employee commute are different commitments.

Even adjusting shifts has limits. A small restaurant cannot necessarily move preparation or closing times to suit a bus. A shop with a handful of staff may have little flexibility to reshuffle coverage.

Ernie’s suggestion is worth exploring where the numbers fit. The question is which employers could realistically participate, what they would contribute and what incentive would make it worthwhile. Highline establishes a precedent; it does not establish a workable model for most small businesses.

Housing closer to work: closer to which jobs?

Ernie also proposed municipal approvals or zoning changes for rural housing, suggesting that living closer to a workplace could offer “a solution beyond the traditional aspects of transit and car sharing.”

There is a practical appeal to shortening a commute. A worker who can walk to several employers gains options that a bus timetable may struggle to provide.

But the location and type of housing matter. Homes near a settlement’s workplaces and transit can serve different needs from accommodation beside an isolated rural business. Workers also need options when they change jobs or when several household members work in different places.

The County’s 2025 zoning bylaw already provides for additional dwelling units, subject to conditions. Adequate water and wastewater servicing remains necessary, and rural sites may require supporting studies.

That makes the follow-up specific: what existing restriction would Ernie change, on which sites, and how would that produce housing workers can afford?

Permission alone does not pay for construction or secure an affordable rent. A short commute also loses its advantage if the only route involves walking along an unsafe road.

The County’s new Employment and Industrial Lands Study should improve its understanding of land supply and locations. Its industrial focus, however, will not provide a complete picture of hospitality, retail, health and agricultural workplaces. 

A convincing housing proposal needs identifiable sites, feasible servicing, affordable delivery and safe access. It also needs a timeline. Someone deciding whether to accept a job this month cannot rely on a home that may become available years later.

Turning three approaches into commitments

The candidates brought useful but incomplete pieces to the discussion.

Brad identified after-hours gaps. He could make that proposal concrete by naming the journeys he would prioritize, their funding and how a carpooling arrangement would handle cancellations.

Terry emphasized making the existing system work better. His next task is to identify schedule changes and explain whether they require more hours or trade away service other passengers need.

Ernie broadened the discussion to housing and employer transportation. His proposals need locations, delivery costs and evidence that participating employers could sustain the arrangement.

None supplied a funded implementation timetable or measurable employment-access outcome in this exchange, which makes sense as the questions provided limited time for the candidate’s answer. Now, asking for those details gives residents a fair way to compare their approaches, and we encourage the mayoral candidates to flesh out their answers in response to this open article, either in the comments or by emailing hello@pecconnect.ca.

A combination may ultimately serve the County best, with different tools suited to different workplaces. 

The essential test remains straightforward: can a worker reach the shift, afford the journey and get home reliably? That is where a promising idea becomes something a person can build a working life around.

---

Candidate quotations are from the Q3 debate transcript: Nieman, 00:26:32; Shortt, 00:27:48; Margetson, 00:28:33.